Dear Friends,
As I’m sure we all know by now, the United States government has been separating children from parents apprehended at the Mexican border. According to the Department of Homeland Security, between April 18th and May 31st,
1,995 children
were taken from 1,940 adults.
Unfortunately, it has been difficult to confirm details, because different federal agencies (e.g., ICE, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, etc.) and different officials (e.g., the Secretary of Homeland Security, the President, and other administration officials) have responded inconsistently to questions about this practice. Some have asserted that it is U.S. policy; others have denied it. Notwithstanding the denials and even what appears to be outright obfuscation in the air, I believe that there is sufficient evidence that this is an actual governmental policy that I feel justified referring to it as such.
The reason that has been given for this policy is that “the law requires it.” As I understand it, that’s not entirely accurate. If individuals crossing the border are apprehended as criminals, then, yes, federal law requires that children be separated from their parents. Children may
not
be held in federal prisons. But if those crossing the border are instead detained in what is called “immigrant detention,” my understanding is that children
may
legally remain with their parents.
I’m going to leave it to those better versed in immigration law, such as our own Gerry Rovner, to provide more details about this point. (Gerry is the head of our Immigration Sub-Committee.
)
Many Americans, including many Jews, have expressed opposition to -- if not abhorrence of -- this policy. It recently (and remarkably) managed to unite Jews from all across the religious and ideological spectrum. A large number of Jewish groups agreed on the text of a letter to U.S. Attorney General Sessions opposing the practice. That letter, which was signed by, among others, the Rabbinical Assembly (the association of Conservative Rabbis of which both Rabbi Gordon and I are members) can be accessed
here
. I urge you to read it. If you would like to support organizations that are mobilizing to help separated immigrant children, here is a
list.
I would like to address one aspect of this crisis that has particularly concerned me: namely, the manner in which our government has responded to criticism of the policy.
Last Thursday, June 14th, Attorney General Sessions used a passage from the Christian Bible to justify separating migrant children from their families at the American border.
“Illegal entry into the United States is a crime, as it should be,” he said. “Persons who violate the law of our nation are subject to prosecution.
I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order.”
(emphasis added) . The Attorney General's words were later defended by White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders who repeated that it is "very biblical" to enforce the law.
I was disappointed by the use of the Christian Bible by our Attorney General to (a) explicitly justify a policy of separating children from their parents at the border and also (b) implicitly to suggest that it is wrong to criticize it. (To learn more about the text from Romans 13, and how it has been used in American history, read my postscript below.)
We Jews have a comparable text, not in the Hebrew Bible, but in the Talmud:
“dina d’malchuta dina
.” “The law of the land is the law.”
The origin of this idea comes from Jeremiah, who urged Jews who had been exiled to Babylon to “seek the peace of the city to which [God] had exiled [them], and to pray to God on its behalf, for in its peace, [they too] would find peace.”
Consistent with this principle, Jews did comply with the "law of the land" -- so long as it involved civil and economic matters, but not when it was contrary to religious Jewish law or faith.
It isn't for me to speak to the relevance of the Romans text for Christians, though I should note that many Christian clerics, including Boston's own Cardinal O'Malley, have denounced its use to defend the current policy. The Cardinal concluded a statement he issued on June 13th as follows:
As a Catholic bishop, I support political and legal authority. I have always taught respect for the civil law and will continue to do so. But, I cannot be silent when our country’s immigration policy destroys families, traumatizes parents, and terrorizes children. The harmful and unjust policy of separating children from their parents must be ended.
Regarding Jews, I believe that the principle of
dina d'malchuta dina
should not discourage us from protesting the practice of separating families at the U.S. border.
Whether we’re Christians or Jews -- or neither -- we ourselves are not attempting to illegally cross the borders of the United States. Yes, migrants who would wish to enter the United States should do so in compliance with the laws of our nation.
But we -- at least those of us who are citizens of the United States -- are in a different position. As citizens, we have privileges our ancestors couldn't have conceived of. In particular, we have the right to practice our faith, to assemble, to express ourselves and to petition the government. It is neither illegal nor immoral to protest laws or policies, or to protest how they are being enforced.
On the contrary: If we believe that separating families at the border is unwise, unjust, cruel -- or all of the above -- it is not only a
right
to protest, but it might be a
duty
as well.
For our government -- according to the familiar words of President Lincoln -- was intended to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Only if we, the people, make known our views to our elected officials can our government come to understand whether or not the current policy reflects the people's will.
We need not and should not be parties to an application of the law that we believe is unnecessary, inappropriate, unjust, and even cruel.
Not only is that stance entirely consistent with our laws; not only does it not challenge the respective domains of public and religious law; it also honors the best traditions of our country.
As Jews, let's heed our own call to action, which is expressed in the classic Talmudic dictum (Shabbat 54b):
"
Whoever is able to protest the transgressions of their family and does not do so is held responsible for them. Whoever is able to protest the transgressions of the people of their community and does not do so is held responsible for them. Indeed, whoever is able to protest the transgressions of the entire world and does not do so is held responsible for the transgressions of the entire world."
Let's take those words to heart.
Sincerely,
Rabbi Carl M. Perkins
P.S. Since the Book of Romans is not in the Hebrew Bible, the passage discussed above is probably not familiar to many of us. Let me say a few things about it.
The verse reads,
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.”
According to many Biblical scholars, this text, probably composed in the 50s of the Common Era, was written to discourage a rebellion against Rome. Indeed, only a dozen years or so later, the Great Jewish revolt did break out against Rome, with devastating losses. It seems as though, in the words of one scholar, Paul was attempting to dissuade revolutionary action that might have threatened the unity of the early Christian community.
The text was not necessarily intended to be a blanket statement about how Christians should relate to civil government. Moreover, like all verses in the Bible, it should be read in context, and alongside other seemingly contradictory or diverging verses.
Alongside Romans 13, there are certainly Biblical texts that seem to advocate for or provide positive examples of civil disobedience — such as the story in Exodus of the Hebrew midwives who refused to execute Moses despite Pharaoh’s dictates that all newborn boys be killed.
Interestingly, even though Romans 13 wasn’t necessarily designed to be applied more broadly, this text has figured twice in American history to provide support for the government.
It was first used to legitimize government power among Loyalists during the the American Revolution. They interpreted the text to mean that Americans should not break away from England.
The second instance was prior to the Civil War. The verse was interpreted by pro-slavery advocates to justify the perpetuation of the institution of slavery and to advocate for the forcible return of fugitive slaves.
In both of these cases, Romans 13 was used to justify the position that Christians are required to submit to governmental authority, regardless of their own moral positions.
Interestingly, Romans 13 includes a verse that is remarkably similar to a classic Jewish teaching.
The Jewish text, by the great Jewish sage, Hillel, is a
midrash
on Leviticus 19:18:
"'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
That is the entire Torah; all the rest is commentary." The Christian parallel (Romans 13:9) is: "
For the commandments,
'You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,'
and all other commandments, are summed up with these words: '
You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
'”
